I thought something similar myself. The notion of diaspora doesn't exactly conjure up warming thoughts, but instead someone displaced (of their own volition or not) from their native homes. It is a very emotionally charged concept.
I respect your underlying point, but I can't accept your examples as tasteless. Apache was named such in homage to the Apache nations (at least according to the Apache Foundation):
"The name 'Apache' was chosen from respect for the various Native American nations collectively referred to as Apache, well-known for their superior skills in warfare strategy and their inexhaustible endurance. It also makes a cute pun on "a patchy web server" -- a server made from a series of patches -- but this was not its origin. The group of developers who released this new software soon started to call themselves the "Apache Group"." (from the Apache Foundation website).
GIMP, while maybe a little less tasteful, at least is simply an acronym for GNU image manipulation program.
Neither of those examples resonate with the same connotations as "diaspora" (edit) to me. I can respect that the examples you listed might strike others in that way, however.
As you suggest, this is going to be a matter of personal taste. But to me, naming software after an oppressed people is prima facie gross. That kind of homage is patronizing by default. We don’t have a Jew filesystem or a Tutsi browser, however flattering they might be the minds of the founders.
I think it’s mostly irrelevant that Gimp is an acronym. As an extreme case, if the initials of my descriptively named project happen to spell the N-word, people would be right to question my taste if I ran with it. Obviously “Apache” is not the same as the N-word, but you can see the point. It doesn’t matter if the connotations in my mind are only wholesome: I’m assigning to symbols that are already bound in outer contexts, and that’s dangerous in human culture.
I’m not trying to be the political correctness police here. It’s not my job to get angry on other people’s behalf – I’m not Apache or physically disabled. But I would think very hard before calling a project anything like Apache or Gimp, and to me they seem at least as bad as Diaspora.
Anyway, I do see how a reasonable person could hold your position.
You're making some very well reasoned points here too, and got my upvote. I'm not sure if it's just being accustomed to Apache and GIMP as long-standing products, or what exactly, but I don't get quite the same visceral negative response to those names as Diaspora (or Jew filesystem or Tutsi browser).
I'm not out to be overly politically correct either, for the same reason - I don't fall into the category of anyone who could actually relate personally to the notion of diaspora. My personal reaction was negative, others here seem to like the name plenty enough. To each their own in this regard.
